Is he right?

>>8187488
no

>>8187488
No, research works, the problem is that a lot of people idealise it and get some kind of post-partum depression when they see the truth : A bunch of normal people doing a normal job following strict guidelines, and not a zoo where everyone gets to try his stupid idea and waste money.

>>8187488
He's right.

Plan to work for a company if you want a chance at doing something useful.

>>8187496
>company
>research
l m a o

>>8187496
It's really the same, but companies usually do very applied researches.

In some fields maybe. In some of the hotter fields, labs are so competitive and there's so many people in the game that people rush to publish with actually taking the time to do careful work.

If you want to do good science it's actually better to go to one of the slower, less well funded fields. People more often take their time and make sure their research is actually right before they publish.

File: more.png (508KB, 808x962px) Image search: [Google]

508KB, 808x962px

Here is more. Is he right?

File: 1464722731786.jpg (51KB, 720x438px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 720x438px

>>8187496
>Useful

This is subjective, but you can be sure that industry will focus on monetising the research results

>>8187488
I disagree with this faggot

Academic research is incremental and iterative. Not every paper will be groundbreaking research, but as long as the standard is maintained, every bit of this research moves us forward.

I've done scientific research in both environments and it is pretty clear to me that academic research is more rigorous.

>>8187488
That fag doesn't even know how to use punctuation properly.

>>8187488
yes.

except for a very few fields and even then restricted to a few depts, a lot of science is grant-fuelled confirmation bias in action i.e. "substance free ritualistic BS"

I've known a number of people who were rejected from journals bc they disproved earlier results by using new methods and they were effectively told to stop using those methods because they produced new results (mind you, not a single peer comment was about it being invalid, just incongruous with a half decade of calcified confirmation bias)

such is human dogma but this holds with just about anything, it's just more obvious in science where we are supposed to be "innovative" and "progressive"

>>8187651
Please give any example.
If my publications were rejected but I know the principal and style were more than acceptable I would simply publish in a less reputable journal; SOMEONE would find the novel method's improvement to the methodology useful and would adopt it.

The only reason what youre saying happens is if the method itself is really hard to reproduce and verify firsthand and the entire study is essentially heresay, like dietary science or psychology.

Are you a dietician, anon?

>>8187488
>>8187518
Yes, most gainful research is done in industry. That being said, new techniques and ideas are usually discovered in academia. Most of these are incredibly niche' and won't see practical industrial applications, but related technologies might.

>>8187651
which field? i know its not math

To some extent. Publication Bias has been found to be existing in social sciences.

How about you try and read some of his books instead of his tweets? I've only read The Black Swan or whatever the title was and he went into much greater detail there.

>>8187773
no, not math. Math people seem comparatively very accepting; don't mind research that is only marginally innovative OR really innovative; and just seem kinder in general.

Person I knew was researching language acquisition in toddlers, so cog sci/psych (where I've noticed reviews are often crueler, more personal, and less accepting of things that are outside of the reviewer's hobbyhorse much more often than in, say, math)

However, I've seen this a lot in neighboring fields too, neuro, AI/machine learning, speech recognition, etc.

Industry invents or optimizes "thing" through, more often than not, massive amounts of trial and error and educated guesswork for the purpose of making money. Academia then figues out why "thing" works/is optimal through research.

>>8187518
Hans Joachim Pabst von Ohain (14 December 1911 – 13 March 1998) was a German physicist, and designer of the first operational jet engine.[1] His first design ran in March 1937, and it was one of his engines that powered the world's first flyable all-jet aircraft, the prototype of the Heinkel He 178 (He 178 V1) in late August 1939.

>first operational jet engine
>physicist

>>8188099
His twitter is good banter. Yes I should read his books.

What a surprise, a board full of flat earther morons has Taleb fanboys.

>>8187496
>implying private companies are any less strict with their money
>implying research companies don't have set goals and guidelines
Top fucking kek

found the pre grad student guys

That's definitely true when it comes to the humanities lol

>>8187496

Company:

- Narrow field of research
- No freedom
- 'Minimum Viable Product' mentality
- Have to justify existence to business graduates on a daily basis

Sounds great

>>8191288
this is true

>>8191288
Thread

Yes, 99% of research is pure crap, and it's accepted by everyone, but it's all worth it for that 1% that is truly exceptional. There is no way to avoid that situation.

>>8192460
Sources?

>>8192462
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law
https://www.quora.com/Is-Elon-Musk-right-in-saying-most-academic-papers-are-useless

>>8187733
>Please give any example

Not that anon, but James Enstrom is an example. He did a study on passive smoking and the university he worked for effectively fired him because he came to the conclusion it wasn't harmful. They fired him because he didn't reach the conclusion their ideology demanded.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/15/local/la-me-ucla-20120615

>>8192466
>Elon Musk

Lol.

>>8192476
Ugh
Fuck off and die
So sick of your bullshit.

>>8192476
/sci/ - Race Science and Smoking

>>8192496
Why? Because you don't agree with the findings?

>>8191288

Academia:
- Narrow field of research
- No freedom
- 'Minimum Publishable Paper' mentality
- Have to justify existence to professors on a daily basis
- Pay is shit
- Funding is shit
- Professors are far less organized than even the most toxic company
- Very little chance for advancement.


Sounds fun.
Don't feed me your starving artist bullshit either: If it ain't worth money, it ain't worth my time

>>8187518

Technology created itself, wow.

>>8192607
sounds like you either don't know shit, or you're very bad at research

>>8187518
>industrial revolution
>growth in knowledge, scientific revolution
>actually adventurers and hobbyists

um

>>8192798
Sounds like you're a university boy who actually buys into the shit universities do regarding their """""groundbreaking""""" """""""""""""""""studies""""""""""""""""".

>>8187488
no. hes making a generalization. come on guys, we're on 4chan. do generalizations ever hold water as an argument?

idk about the other fields, but when there is a breakthrough in chemistry (in academia) multiple startups form around that idea. this is most common in the pharma industry. they the take that idea and run, turning it into a product.

to say that academia is just worthless stamp collecting is retarded. sure there are a lot of professors who do just that, but they do it because they like it. not because they want to make a product. need i remind you this same argument was made towards Alexander Flemming when he was fucking around with mold and everyone thought he was wasting his time?

>>8192827
I don't buy into anything, I enjoy my research very much.

>>8192478
>you
Lol.